Template talk:Health care

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Medicine This template is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles

I like the idea of this template, but these two section have a MAJOR chance of ballooning out of size very quickly. Any thoughts on that? I think equipment might even be removed, or made into a separate template. Ingolfson (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initially, this was a part of Template:Nursing, and I split it from that. If it needs to be split further in the future, be so. But for now, it is small, and I plan to search for more articles (or some possible future articles to add to it.

My background is as a nurse assistant, a profession I worked in for 13 years in a number of settings. I am most familiar with the terms from my line of work. Others who have been RNs and various technicians may be aware of more. Tatterfly (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really needs some way to focus the equipment, otherwise it such a huge list that template doesn't seem appropriate way to navigate them. For instance, weighing scales and tape measure are basic diagnostic equipment, but used for so many other things that not clear that this template belongs on those pages. Categories already exist for some of this, though could be refined. That or a list seems better way to deal with equipment. Zodon (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think a separate health care equipment template make sense. Jesanj (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check out how messy Instruments used in general surgery is. And look at all of our "Instruments used in..." articles. Clearly this is a gargantuan task that will not be done in the forseeable future. I'm removing this large largely incomplete section from the template. Jesanj (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As also mentioned here[1] these edits had a rough consensus between two editors partially because they avoided template creep. Please discuss reverting these changes on the talk page to generate a consensus. Jesanj (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not think this template is all too long compared with others. "Template creep" refers to placing too many templates on a single page. Tatterfly (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do think this section (Wikipedia:Avoid_template_creep#Navigational_template_creep) is a bit more expansive. Your first sentence doesn't offer any reasoning besides saying other stuff exists. My core argument is based on common sense. There are so many medical devices/instruments I think it is a bad idea to link each one in this template. Each device is irrelevant to an encyclopedic template on health care, in my opinion. Maybe one link to an article on a list of devices or instruments should suffice. (Done, with a link to equipment.) Also, your revert placed undue weight on your particular selection of devices, and it removed other information without any rationale. Jesanj (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the label "Ranking", which linked to the WHO's health ranking of nations from 2000. It does not fit in with the other broad categories ("Economics", "Philosophy") and is too specific and outdated to be listed in a general overview. —Designate (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it fits in fine. The WHO has global prestige and while it's not a perfect ranking, I don't think it has to be perfect to be linked here. Jesanj (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not parallel with the other categories listed. If there were an article called "Ranking of health care by nation", or "national health care systems", that would be a top-level category. But it doesn't make sense to have a small, specific article mixed in with nine other top-level articles. —Designate (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but I am under the impression that the 2000 ranking, though not perfect, is the most widely cited ranking of health care systems by nation. In that case, I don't see why it can't stand. Jesanj (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]